Who needs assault rifles, or government?

In Editorial on July 24, 2012 at 11:23 am

The bodies of victims from the Aurora, Colorado mass killing were not even cooled to room temperature before opportunistic politicians climbed atop their corpses to clamor for more gun control or, at least, “sensible” gun control.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, characteristically took the low ground by arrogantly marginalizing the grief being expressed across America by saying, “soothing words are nice” when he demanded that his fellow politicians “stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about” preventing mass shootings.

The sad news is: there is virtually nothing a free society can do to prevent people with solid, immovable intent to commit the crime of murder upon one, or more, of his/her fellow citizens.

At this writing, it is known that at least twelve people from the so-called “Batman Rises” assault have died. It is likely that more, who are now in hospital, will die (G-d forbid!).

In 1982, a poisoner used potassium cyanide in altered Tylenol capsules to kill seven people in the Chicago area.

The murderer was never caught.

Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, eluded capture for almost twenty years, had killed three and wounded at least twenty-three.

The Tylenol Murderer and the Unabomber were failures at killing. The shooter in Aurora, Colorado was also a dismal failure at mass murder. He was armed and munitioned to kill hundreds.

Here is a sampling of successful mass murderers:

Hitler: 11,000,000

Stalin: 20,000,000

Mao: 15,000,000

Pol Pot: 1,700,000

Each of these murderers was the lawful leader of a lawful government of his country.

Approximately 93,000,000 people died during the last century due to the actions of government.

If “assault weapons” in the hands of civilians are the root cause of mass killings in America; how much more so is government in the hands of politicians?

The reason there are no American names on the above tally?

America completed most of its own genocide a hundred years earlier as part of its “Manifest Destiny”. You know, “G-d wills it!”

Displacing America’s native people, by force and with murder, was declared “best” for all concerned?

Folks like Mayor Bloomberg always hold themselves out to know what is best.

Mayor Bloomberg outlawed trans fats. Mayor Bloomberg wants to outlaw super-sized soda pop.

“What need…” the Bloomberg-type demands “…do people have of trans fats, Big Gulps, high-capacity magazines, and scary black guns?”

The same need they have of over two hundred television channels, email everywhere, and automobiles capable of reaching speeds of over twenty miles-per-hour.

There is no need of such things and there certainly is no need, in a free society, for individuals to prove to a government that they have a need for those things.

Libertarians may believe they have no need for a “smart” phone, but do not seek to ban smart phones. We don’t see a “need” for television shows like Jersey Shore, but we have no inner drive to ban them “for the good of the people”. We do not demand that people show us a need to buy or consume some commodity.

Some libertarians have no need for Big Gulps or fast cars, nor do they seek to ban them for everyone else. It’s the people who seek to control others who typically ask, “Why do they need…?”

The people who truly see themselves as special go further than demanding others to state a need for something: These self-anointed ones declare, unilaterally, that there is no need for something and then ban that “something” based on their own dismissal of anyone’s need for it, even if the person wanting that “something” states a need for it.

The self-anointed Michael Bloombergs of the world deeply believe they are charged by Heaven to protect us, to guide us, and to control us. Therefore, they reason, we must provide our protectors with a “valid reason” to buy, drink, or use a product.

They fret endlessly over a dozen or so “senseless” deaths at the hands of an individual, but they shrug off millions of deaths at the hands of government.

Despite the disproportionate number of deaths, they never seriously address questions from libertarians who simply ask for a valid reason for government.

[There is a flipside to the question of need for government that libertarians must address: “Aren’t libertarians who suggest there is no need for government, exercising the same arrogance as those who state there is no need for Big Gulps or high-capacity rifle magazines?” I believe that is an excellent question and completely valid assertion. Which is why true, classic liberals do not assert anarchism is for everyone. We are more than happy for others to form governments if they believe they are incapable of self-regulation. We simply ask to be given the choice of whether or not we to be governed (told what to do and when to do it) by a government someone else needs. Reasonable people would be appalled if told they must join the Lions Club or Rotary. People have long-shunned being ordered to join houses of worship. Why then, is it insisted that a person make himself a member of a country and thereby become subservient to a government?]

 “We need government and we need laws to maintain society, reason, and mutual protection.”

No we don’t.

There is nothing magically protective in government. Statists direly warn of “chaos” and “rampant crime” if government did not exist. That’s simply nonsense.

Murder represents the most abominable of crimes. Yet, in the Holocaust, over 7.5 million human beings were murdered in complete accordance with German laws of the day. The law did nothing to protect the victims and did everything possible to enable the killing.

Laws merely provide justification and assuage the consciences of the perpetrators.

Stealing is wrong, unless (as in America) representatives of government (encouraged by a majority vote of co-conspirators) enact laws to tax (or wholly confiscate) someone’s income or property. Abduction and kidnapping for ransom is wrong, unless there are similarly enacted laws empowering government to ban certain activities on pain of being kidnapped (jailed) and/or forced to pay a ransom (fine) for his/her release.

If a war is unpopular, or if people cannot justify their being turned into cannon fodder for the state, laws enacting military conscription are enacted. Those who avoid conscription are jailed, despite the reason that tells us if the cause (for war) was just, there would be a surplus of people volunteering to fight in it.

Classical libertarianism says, “Let those who need such laws enact them and impose them upon themselves…

…and leave the rest of us alone.”

We don’t need them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: